Alteration in Mechanics of Overhead Squat with Wedge
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967
Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.
Alteration in Mechanics of Overhead Squat with Wedge
1
Khushboo Bathia, 2Fiddy Davis, 3Prachiti Bhore
1
PhD Scholar, School of Physiotherapy, RK University &Assistant Professor, Krishna
College of Physiotherapy, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences “Deemed To be
University”, Karad
2
Department of Exercise and Sports Sciences, SOAHS, Manipal University, Manipal, India
3
Faculty of Physiotherapy, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Deemed to be University,
Karad, India.
Corresponding Author and Mail: khushboobathia985@gmail.com
Abstract:
Background: Altered or poor mechanics of movement creates tissue damage and stress leading
to overuse injuries. It was observed that athletes with muscle imbalance had decreased playing
performance and were at risk for injuries. Tight post chain structures could probably lead to
altered mechanics of the overhead squat.
Aim: To know whether giving a wedge beneath the heels partly nullifies the tightness in the
posterior chain and improves the mechanics of the overhead squat.
Methods: 30 collegiate male athletes from cricket, football and basketball were taken with a
mean age of (21.37 + 2.34) years. All of them performed five overhead squats with and without a
two inch wooden wedge kept beneath the heels.
Results: We found shoulder flexion to improve by 3.27⁰ (+ 7. 79⁰ ) with the presence of a two
inch wedge. Statistically significant (p = 0.024) difference was noted in shoulder flexion (46.32+
9.58), Hip flexion (98.88+ 17.43) and (p= 0.0002), Knee flexion (114.27+ 21.79) and (p= 0.006),
Ankle dorsiflexion (46.32+ 9.58) and (p=Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967
Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.
squat.[5] Wrong movement patterns such as medio lateral rotation of the hip, the knee
alignment inside or outside the hip during the movement provokes the amount of
compressive and shear forces at the ankle, knee and hip joints [6,7] and this likely
increases the chances of injuries.
Common problems with reduced ankle flexibility is that it limits joint ROM and affects
kinematics and kinetics of the hip and knee during overhead squat.[8, 9, 10] Also poor
ankle mobility commonly leads to inappropriate squatting technique[11]. The common
approach to address ankle mobility issues is to squat using weightlifting shoes or wedges
to elevate the heels with the literature suggesting that these modifications alter lower limb
kinematics.[12] It was commonly observed that athletes with muscle imbalance which
included weakness and tightness of the selected muscle groups had an overall decreased playing
performance and were most likely at risk for acute and overuse injuries. [13] The overhead
squat is commonly used as an assessment tool. When performing the overhead squat, various
imbalances become apparent through an individual's movement patterns. Overhead squat is one
of the most frequently used exercises in the field of strength, conditioning and sports
training. It also has biomechanical and neuromuscular similarities to a variety of athletic
movements. Analysis and understanding of the overhead squat kinematics is essential in the
correction of muscle imbalance as well as in the training of athletes to reduce the risk of a
training-related injury.[10,12] There are various reasons why an individual may not be able to
complete a full squat. From the tightness of the muscle around the hips to the knee and/or ankle
restrictions, it is necessary to identify the source of the problem. [11] There is still a significant
dearth in literature in spite of abundant studies on muscle injury and muscle imbalance as to
how the mechanics would alter combination.[12,14,15]
Muscle tightness includes adaptive shortening of the contractile and noncontractile components
of the muscle resulting in reduced range of motion. [16] As a result their performance gets
affected and results in loss of smooth coordinated motion. Muscle tightness is therefore
commonly observed as an inherent risk factor for a muscle injury. [17] Tightness in the posterior
chain structures and the resulting muscle imbalance could probably lead to alteration
mechanics while performance of overhead squat.[13] The purpose of the research is to
know whether giving a wedge beneath the heels partly nullifies the tightness in the
posterior chain and improves the mechanics of the overhead squat.
Methods
30 male recreationally active athletes without any injury to lower extremity were taken for the
study. Athletes were involved in either cricket, football or basketball sports from the age group
of 18 to 40 years.They were physically active, which was defined as doing 30 minutes of
physical activity a day for a minimum of 3 days/wk. The Athletes who reported conditions that
resulted in decreased range of motion at neck, shoulder and back, if they reported lower
extremity injury in either leg within the past 3 months and missed physical activity for at least 1
day or, if they had had lower extremity surgery within the past year, or if they had current knee
http://annalsofrscb.ro
11963Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967 Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021. pain at time of testing were excluded. Signed Written informed consent was taken from those willing to participate after approval from the institutional Ethical committee. Athletes reported to the Physiotherapy Department for the assessment session which lasted for 45 minutes approximately . Tightness was measured for the hamstrings, quadriceps and TendoAchilies. The grading was based on whether the muscles were tight or not. Athlete positioning while performance of length tests were similar to those reported by Kendall.[18] They were asked to wear spandex shorts and a spandex T-shirt. Data was assessed and recorded for the athletes dominant leg, which was defined as the leg used to kick a ball a maximal distance.[13] One cm fluorescent markers were placed on the test limb of athlete at lateral malleolus, lateral femoral condyle, greater trochanter (on clothing) and lateral epicondyle. Before the actual squat performance a demonstration of squat was given by the observer and was followed by five practice squats with instructions: squatting with arms overhead to a position reflecting sitting on a chair in a standardized position with feet shoulder width apart, toes pointing forward.[19] All of them were asked to perform a series of five overhead squats under two conditions: with two inch wooden wedge (12° inclination) kept beneath the heels inclined towards the forefoot and without wedge . Sagittal view of their performance was then recorded using a SONY HDR AS200VTM action camera placed on a tripod at the height level of the umbilicus of respective athletes. The tripod was fixed 64 inches away from the marked location where the athlete stood shoulder width apart and performed the overhead squat. The videos were then transferred to the computer and were analyzed using Dartfish software (version 7.1). Joint angles were measured using “angle” function in the software, goniometer was placed on the knee. This angle represented the knee flexion angle.[20] Similarly shoulder flexion was taken as the relative angle between trunk and the arm. Hip flexion was the relative angle between the femur and trunk and ankle dorsiflexion as the relative angle between tibia and line passing through the 2nd toe. The data analysis was done with SPSS version 16. Limitations We observed only the sagittal plane. If we examined the frontal plane motion with and without use of the wedge we would have been able to better relate the deviations in the overhead squat performance in frontal plane and sagittal plane by addition of wedge and the resulting increase in the room available for dorsiflexion. So we suggest that the frontal plane motion can be included in the future studies to add a different dimension to the literature. Results The mean age of the athletes was 21.37+ 2.34 years. We used paired t tests individually for all four variables and found shoulder flexion to improve by 3.27⁰ (+ 7. 79⁰ ) with the presence of a two inch wedge. Statistically significant (p = 0.024) difference was noted in shoulder flexion after the use of wedge with Mean difference of (3.42). Hip flexion was (-8.72) and (p= 0.0002), Knee flexion was (-8.06) and (p= 0.006). Ankle dorsiflexion was (-8.72) and (p=
Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967
Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.
the results were statistically significant. The Mean +SD values without and with the use of
the wedge. (Table 1)
Table 1: Joint angles without wedge and with wedge conditions for dorsiflexion,
knee flexion, hip flexion and shoulder flexion
Joint angle in Degrees Mean + SD Mean Difference p value
Without Wedge With Wedge
Dorsiflexion 37.6+ 10.56 46.32+ 9.58 -8.72Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967
Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.
knee[13].
Conclusion
Based on our results, increasing dorsiflexion at the ankle with the use of two inch wedge resulted
in following kinematic changes: increased shoulder flexion, increased knee flexion and increased
hip flexion in addition to overall increase in athletes ease and confidence in the overhead squat
performance. By adding a wedge the room available for dorsiflexion was increased and there
was a shift in the center of gravity anteriorly.
References
1.Witvrouw E, Danneels L, Asselman P, D’Have T, Cambier D. Muscle flexibility as a risk
factor for developing muscle injuries in male professional soccer players: A prospective study.
Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(1):41–6.
2.McGill S, Frost D, Lam T, Finlay T, Darby K, Cannon J. Can fitness and movement quality
prevent back injury in elite task force police officers? A 5-year longitudinal study.Ergonomics.
2015;58(10):1682–9.
3.Escamilla RF. Knee biomechanics of the dynamic squat exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc,
2001;33:127-41.
4.Fry AC, Smith JC, Schilling BK. Effects of knee position on hip and knee torque during the
barbell squat. J Strength Cond Res, 2003;17:629-633
5.The overhead squat. J UK Strength Cond Assoc 5: 6–7, 2007.Aspe RR, Swinton PA.
Electromyographic and kinetic comparison of the back squat and overhead squat.The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. 2014 Oct 1;28(10):2827-36.
6. Kritz M, Cronin J, Hume P. The bodyweight squat: A movement screen for the squat pattern.
Strength & Conditioning Journal, 2009; 31: 76-85
7.Chiaia TA, Maschi RA, Stuhr RM, Rogers JR, Sheridan MA, Callahan LR, Hannafin JA. A
musculoskeletal profile of elite female soccer players. HSS J, 2009; 5: 186-95
8.Dill KE, Begalle RL, Frank BS, Zinder SM, Padua DA. Altered knee and ankle kinematics
during squatting in those with limited weight-bearing-lunge ankle-dorsiflexion range of motion. J
Athl Training. 2014;49(6):723–32.
9.Bell DR, Padua DA, Clark MA. Muscle strength and flexibility characteristics of people
displaying excessive medial knee displacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(7):1323–8.
10.Fuglsang EI, Telling AS, Sørensen H. Effect of ankle mobility and segment ratios on trunk
lean in the barbell back squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(11):3024–33.
11.Sayers MG, Nasab SH, Bachem C, Taylor WR, List R, Lorenzetti S. The effect of increasing
heel height on lower limb symmetry during the back squat in trained and novice lifters.BMC
Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2020 Dec;12(1):1-1.
12. Proske U, Morgan DL, Brockett CL, Percival P. Identifying athletes at risk of hamstring
strains and how to protect them. ClinExpPharmacol Physiol. 2004;31:546-550.
13.Macrum E, Bell DR, Boling M, Lewek M, Padua D. Effect of limiting ankle-dorsiflexion
range of motion on lower extremity kinematics and muscle-activation patterns during a squat.
Journal of sport rehabilitation. 2012 May 1;21(2):144-50.
14.Bennell K, Wajswelner H, Lew P, et al. Isokinetic strength testing does not predict hamstring
injury in Australian Rules footballers. Br J Sports Med. 1998;32:309-314.
http://annalsofrscb.ro
11966Annals of R.S.C.B., ISSN:1583-6258, Vol. 25, Issue 4, 2021, Pages. 11962 - 11967
Received 05 March 2021; Accepted 01 April 2021.
15. Croisier JL, Forthomme B, Namurois M, Vanderthommen M, Creilaard JM. Hamstring
muscle strain recurrence and strength performance disorders. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:199-
203.
16.Bhosale N, Yeole U, Chogle A, Khatri S. Assessment of Lower Extremity Flexibility in
Recreational Football Players.IJRAR. 2019;2:22-6.
17.Kisner C. (1985) Therapeutic exercise foundations and techniques. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis
Company.
18. Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG, Rodgers M, Romani WA. Muscles: testing and
function with posture and pain. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1993.
19.Clark M, Lucett S, editors. NASM essentials of corrective exercise training. Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2010 Sep 21.
20.Damsted C, Nielsen RO, Larsen LH. Reliability of video‐ based quantification of the
knee‐ and hip angle at foot strike during running.International journal of sports physical therapy.
2015 Apr;10(2):147.
http://annalsofrscb.ro
11967You can also read
